Opinion
No. 79-671
Decided March 19, 1980.
Contempt of court — Excused, when — Substantial compliance with court order.
APPEAL from the Court of appeals for Ashtabula County.
This is an appeal from an order of the Court of Appeals, holding the Grand Valley Local Schools Board of Education (hereinafter appellant) in contempt for failing to comply with its prior judgment. The Court of Appeals ordered appellant to pay a fine of $100 per day until appellant issued Aliene Curry (hereinafter appellee) a "continuing contract" for the 1976-1977 academic year.
Appellee is a certified teacher in Ohio. In August 1973, appellee was hired by appellant and was issued a one-year teaching contract for the 1973-1974 academic year. At the expiration of that contract, the appellee was reemployed and was issued a two-year limited teaching contract for the 1974-1975 and the 1975-1976 academic years.
On April 19, 1976, appellant voted not to reemploy appellee when her existing limited contract expired. Alleging that appellant failed to give her timely notice of its intention not to reemploy her, pursuant to R.C. 3319.11, appellee filed an action in mandamus in the Court of Appeals to require appellant "to issue Relator [appellee] a written contract of employment for the academic year 1976-77 as a successor contract to the agreement which expires on July 31, 1976***."
On July 5, 1977, the court issued the writ, ordering appellant "to issue to Relator [appellee] a contract of employment for the 1976-77 academic year."
This court affirmed that decision in State, ex rel. Curry, v. Bd. of Edn. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 67.
Both the Court of Appeals' and this court's judgments in the mandamus action were entered after the conclusion of the 1976-1977 academic year. It is undisputed that appellant, in compliance with the order, paid appellee the full amount due her as though she had been employed during the 1976-1977 academic year. It is also undisputed that appellant did not issue appellee a "continuing contract" of employment for the 1976-1977 academic year.
The appellant did, by resolution, vote to not reemploy appellee for the 1977-1978 academic year. This time the appellee was timely served with notice of appellant's decision not to reemploy her.
Appellee then filed charges in contempt in the Court of Appeals, alleging that the appellant failed to comply with the court's prior order, since appellant did not issue a "continuing contract" for the 1976-1977 academic year.
The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as a matter of right.
Green, Schiavoni, Murphy, Haines Sgambati Co., L.P.A., Mr. Eugene Green and Mr. Barry R. Laine, for appellee.
Messrs. Squire, Sanders Dempsey, Mr. John F. Lewis, Mr. Gregory B. Scott, Messrs. Petersen, Pasqualone Burt and Mr. Terry G. Pasqualone, for appellant.
Appellant, in its first proposition of law, asserts that it is not in contempt because it substantially complied with the court order dated July 5, 1977, by paying appellee for the 1976-1977 academic year. In essence, appellant asserts that it can not be held in contempt for failing to issue a continuing contract of employment when the complaint in mandamus filed by the appellee prayed for only the issuance of "a written contract of employment for the academic year 1976-77***."
It is rudimentary that contempt will be excused by either actual or substantial compliance with a mandamus order. See State, ex rel., v. Crites (1891), 48 Ohio St. 460; State, ex rel. Maple, v. Hamilton (1912), 19 C.C. (N.S.) 229.
The record of the mandamus action is void of any mention of a "continuing contract." Rather, the mandamus order specifically directs the issuance of a "contract of employment for the 1976-77 academic year." The court's order of July 5, 1977, was couched in the words of appellee's prayer.
As noted in the facts herein, it is undisputed that appellant has paid appellee the amount due her for the 1976-1977 academic school year. Thereafter, the appellant, in full compliance with R.C. 3319.11, notified appellee of its intention not to reemploy her.
Accordingly, we hold that appellant did substantially comply with the mandamus order as specifically worded, by paying her the amount due for the 1976-1977 academic year. Therefore, we hold that appellant is not in contempt and that its first proposition of law is meritorious.
Appellant asserts two additional propositions of law which do not merit discussion or review due to our holding as to its first proposition of law.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is, therefore, reversed.
Judgment reversed.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., HERBERT, W. BROWN, P. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER and HOLMES, JJ., concur.